Books2Movies Club discussion

Tea and Sympathy (1956) is a movie based on the same-name play and scripted by the author himself, Robert Woodruff Anderson.

I haven't read the play, but saw the movie twice. First time the impact was such I wanted to watch it again someday, but the second time didn't fare so well - I think I outgrew it and felt it a bit outdated, considering the themes - sexual orientations, doubts and prejudices. Not to mention how the movie handled the wife, (view spoiler)[like what she did was so bad she had to leave the husband (hide spoiler)]. But I might have to check the movie again to be certain about those impressions. I don't know about the play, were the years more kind with it (pun used purposefully)?

Was this originally part of a collection of plays, or always published separately? I can't seem to find a copy of it at my library, and they have a very good selection, so I'm wondering if I'm just not searching for it correctly?

I read the play back in May and I'm certain it was in an anthology of best plays or something but it seems to have disappeared from our library system because now I only see the French's play stand-alone edition out there.

Also rewatched the movie a while ago. Yes, it seems more dated now but I still find it moving. A number of the movie's sets (as well as much of the cast) were the same as in the Broadway version but the movie did have some changes that from my reading of reviews & film analyses stemmed from cautions by studio censors. I'll put the rest of this comment in spoilers just in case.

(view spoiler)[ To me the students in the movie felt & looked more college age while in the play they were prep school and the male lead was just turning 18 which might have given the studio pause. Also, Deborah Kerr looked a lot more mature than the mid-20s of the play's character description. The movie added an epilogue in which Tom returns for an alumni day with his wife and kids to discover a broken housemaster living alone. In the play I believe she tells Tom she is leaving Bill. This addition was what the censors required to make it obvious that Tom was never actually gay but was rather only "sensitive". The play ended with the famous "when you think of this" scene. I much preferred that that pivotal scene in the movie took place in a lovely woodland grotto rather than in Tom's bedroom as in the play. The location made the scene feel like a "natural" and beautiful gesture while the bedroom setting did feel a bit more "sleazy" and even desperate.

I don't think she left her husband because of what she did with Tom. I think these events made her finally realize that Bill was an insensitive bully who was not going to change and be the man she fell in love with. He had no regard for her feelings or desires and only wanted a suitable wife figure to help further his career. I also feel he was using her as a "beard" to conceal his own deeply repressed orientation. (hide spoiler)]

I don't think our library even has anything by this playwright. Odd.

I finally got a copy of this with interlibrary loan. **spoilers ahead**

I haven't seen a film version, but yes, in the play, she tells her husband she's leaving him because of how he's treated Tom, among other reason...even going so far as to imply that he's persecuting Tom out of his own greatest fear, his own sexuality. She makes it sound as if Bill might really be the one who's gay, and the audience is left to wonder.

Yes, it feels dated, but I wonder at Hollywood's making them college age instead of prep school, because honestly I felt that would change the tone. If the boy is barely 18, Laura comes across as much more predatory, even if she is really just trying to help him. But I wonder how much of that is my looking at it from 2017 eyes and not from 1960s? I DO like the theme of "don't make assumptions," but frankly, even though Laura is trying to help, her way of going about it at the end, effectively seducing Tom, is in my opinion not that helpful; in fact, it only reaffirms society's insinuation that a man is not a man unless he's lost his virginity to a woman. Really? That's our definition of manhood? I have to hope that this same story would be treated a little differently by a modern playwright. Not taking the assumption that he is or isn't gay, but merely that you should let who you are be defined by what society says it is.

Alana wrote: "I finally got a copy of this with interlibrary loan. **spoilers ahead** I haven't seen a film version, but yes, in the play, she tells her husband she's leaving him because of how he's treated Tom..."

Great review, Alana. I wonder too, what would a modern playwright (or a director) do with this theme. The issue sounds just the same as with The Children's Hour. I dare say our eyes look everything differently than people from 30s or 60s.

I was thinking it reminded me of The Children's Hour, but I'd forgotten the name of it!